donald (05/13/82)
Judging from the mail I've received and the flood of articles, Dijkstra has once again succeeded in stirring up a hornets' nest. The arguments flying back and forth are highly reminiscent of the debates over what constitutes "structured programming" and whether it is "good" to use GOTOs. They are also about as productive. Remember who won in the end in the latter debate. To a large extent the flaming has been due to semantic confusion over what is meant by "mathematics". All I can say is, "mathematical programming" in this context does not mean programming mathematical applications. It means applying mathematical formalisms (substitute "logical formalisms" if it makes you feel better) to the *process* of programming itself, as a means of developing programs that are more likely to be correct. At least that's the way I interpreted it. Did any of you go out and read Dijkstra's "A Discipline of Programming" before striking the match? The question of fluid program specifications has little to do with the argument per se. The problem is given a specification, can we correctly implement it? Perhaps a more formal approach to programming will help make our software more reliable. I have no qualms about taking the elevator up the average skyscraper, but I have considerably less confidence in, say, the average real time system. Recall the delays in the first Space Shuttle launch. If D.J. Molny is really as much a mathematical (logical?) incompetent as he claims (which I doubt), I'd hesitate to use any of HIS programs! Actually, calling computing a "science" is somewhat of a misnomer. I disagree With John Winterton's statement that a discipline being a science means that there is only one way of doing things. Look at the number of different ways to prove the average theorem. In any case, computing is not a science in the sense of attempting to develop a theory describing the universe, any more than mathematics is a science. Maybe we should call computer science "informatics" as the people on the Continent do. On this note, I'm bowing out to resume doing useful work, like writing programs! Don Chan, utcsrgv!donald
thomas (05/14/82)
I always thought that any discipline which had to call itself a science (e.g., Computer Science, Social Science, etc.) certainly wasn't one. =Spencer